Scientists have signed the largest-ever warning about Earth’s destruction

If you are serious about fighting climate change, what is the single most effective place to spend money?<p>My guess is: education for girls in Africa.<p>Why? Carbon emmissions per year come down to<p>(energy use per person per year)<i>(carbon emitted per unit energy)</i>(number of people).<p>In developed nations, all of these terms are stable or declining. In many developing nations, and Africa in particular, population growth is still exponential. Relatively small changes in the exponent of that growth have huge impacts on future carbon emission.<p>The pattern of decreasing fertility rate as modern societies develop is called &quot;demographic transition&quot;. One of the biggest factors driving demographic transition is increased education levels for girls.<p>So to get the biggest multiplier on future carbon emmissions, look for the fastest growing term of the equation (population); look where it is growing the fastest (sub-saharan Africa), and look for the best way to reduce that growth (education for girls.)<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wu.ac.at&#x2F;en&#x2F;press&#x2F;press-releases&#x2F;press-releases-details&#x2F;detail&#x2F;from-an-aging-to-an-exploding-population-education-will-decide-humanitys-future&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wu.ac.at&#x2F;en&#x2F;press&#x2F;press-releases&#x2F;press-releases-...</a>

The article says, &quot;Earth&#x27;s destruction&quot; but it doesn&#x27;t really mean that. It&#x27;s more about the extinction of humans and other life.<p>How quaint. I have a sneaking suspicion that long after we&#x27;ve choked ourselves out of existence there will still be plenty of life flourishing. Nature will find a way without us. We&#x27;ll just be a little nasty blip on the geological scale of time.

If the scientists don&#x27;t convince people, I hope the massive droughts in some places, flooding in others, superstorms, and other massive weather pattern shifts will.<p>In the US, there&#x27;s still a large group of people (or maybe just a vocal group) that cover their ears and won&#x27;t listen to anything climate-change related, even in the highest places of our government.<p>I hope a healthy dose of &quot;this is what climate change looks like&quot; will scare people into believing. Even if you don&#x27;t want to believe that humans are the cause, we still need to <i>do</i> something about it, and fast (something besides blaming everything on homosexuals).

It&#x27;s frustrating that no matter how strong the evidence, a large proportion of Americans insist there is nothing to worry about.<p>I have thought a lot about this and come to the conclusion it is to a great extent due to theological beliefs. A large proportion of Americans are evangelical Christians who believe the Bible is the literal world of God, and furthermore believe that the Bible says that unregulated free market capitalism is the right economic system.<p>So when scientists claim that unregulated capitalism is causing damage to the world that in turn is harmful to the human race, these people assume that this claim is wrong and the scientists are really atheists trying to undermine Biblical religion.<p>As for the libertarians and conservatives who just make scientific arguments, it seems to me they are assuming that the Earth was created such that unregulated capitalism can&#x27;t possibly harm it,at least not in a way that would harm humans, no matter what new technologies corporations introduce, and on how large a scale. So they have a sort of implicit theology.

This is great. Their link to the 15000 signatures is broken. Hard to verify what type of &quot;scientists&quot; these are.<p>&quot;Supplementary data are available at BIOSCI online including supplemental file 1 and supplemental file 2 (full list of all 15,364 signatories).&quot; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;academic.oup.com&#x2F;biosci&#x2F;article-lookup&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1093&#x2F;biosci&#x2F;bix125#supplementary-data" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;academic.oup.com&#x2F;biosci&#x2F;article-lookup&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1093&#x2F;b...</a>

This will again go without noticeable action.<p>Why? Because nobody cares enough (or believes deeply enough) to make radical lifestyle changes.<p>Al Gore still have several huge houses. Leanardo DiCaprio still takes solo jet trips across the ocean. The richest people (of all political persuasions) continue to live lives that don&#x27;t reflect an austere lifestyle at all.<p>Why should anyone make sacrifices if nobody else does?

So, a mere 0.14% (!) of the approximate 11 million scientists has signed. Lets be honest here: not a whole lot really...<p>(ps: down-voting this post doesn&#x27;t change this fact...)

15,000 doesn’t sound like many. What’s the p-value?

Best way to fight climate change, eliminate all vaccines. The human population will plummet thus ensuring we have reduced the amount of waste. Human remains can help bring nutrients back to the soil. Other species will be able to repopulate naturally.<p>This won&#x27;t happen, because we want to live forever or that very least certain technological elites are trying to make that happen. We want to have all the latest technology regardless of the transportation costs (shipping containers). Be able to eat that latest restaurant. I could go on.<p>Climate change is real. How much is man-made? I don&#x27;t know and I don&#x27;t really care. On a personal level I attempt to keep my carbon footprint low, though I drive to work and eat meat daily - I bought half a cow and whole pig and store them in a deep freezer. At the same time I have had the same flip-phone for 3 years, and the prior to that I didn&#x27;t have one. Have one TV in my house and a record player.<p>Reduce your consumption to your needs and a few wants, rib-eye steaks. Earth will prosper long after we are gone.

The enabler in the USA for continuing to believe that there is no link between pollution emissions and more pronounced extreme weather is the lack of education surrounding statistics and its analysis.<p>At this point I just ask what scientific statistic a person would need to hear in order to consider changing their mind. Unfortunately, I haven&#x27;t ever gotten an informative reply indicating knowledge of the field, and am still open to hearing what exactly it would be.<p>Edit: Granted, at this point, most people on both sides seem to have given up learning about the fundamental literature driving this debate. See John Oliver&#x27;s &quot;It Just F<i></i>*ing Is&quot; on his recent show.